What to do When You Run Out of Bible

April 27th, 2009

The Book of Jasher

Can’t write too much. My dad’s boat is in the yard, and I have to get up and go to the boatyard with him so we can run it back to the marina. It had oysters on the hull when we took it in. Oysters! I can’t convince him bottom paint isn’t permanent.

Mish Weiss is not enjoying radiation treatment, and some of her blood counts are not good. Keep her in your prayers.

Yesterday I read a big chunk of the book of Jasher. This is an old document which is supposedly a sort of companion to the Torah. Some people claim it’s a forgery, but I believe there are references to it in the Bible. After reading it, I have a very hard time believing it’s not genuine. It’s a long book, and it’s loaded with obscure details and “begots” and so on, and it seems very consistent with the style and message of the Bible. It’s not considered part of the canon, however, so I guess you have to be careful with it.

It’s full of fascinating stuff. For example, it describes the “images” Rachel stole from Laban. It says people used to kill firstborn males and preserve their heads, and they put metal tablets with “the name” inscribed on them under the tongues of the heads. Then they consulted the heads and asked them things, and the heads spoke. Creepy, to say the least. It says an image belonging to someone Laban knew (“Can I borrow your severed head for a minute?”) told Laban where Jacob went when he fled.

The Jews have a lot of stories about the power of “the name,” meaning the true name of God. Supposedly a person who knows it can work wonders, not all of them good. The Torah says something about testing an accused adulteress by making her a drink containing the dissolved name of God. If she’s innocent, no problem, but if not, she gets a disgusting disease reminiscent of the worst types of VD. Maybe Aaron will chime in on the subject.

I hate to say this, but it reminds me of the Coca-Cola formula. Supposedly only two people know it, and they’re not allowed to fly together.

Am I the only one who prefers the term “VD” to the more modern “STD”? It’s amazing how we’re rearranging the language to keep morality out of it. In the past, “whores” used to get “the pox” and “the clap.” Now “sex workers” get “STDs.” Calling it something clean-sounding doesn’t make it morally equivalent to an earache.

Prostitution isn’t “sex work.” It’s a degrading, sinful, disgusting, depraved lifestyle that leads to disease, drug addiction, self-hatred, social isolation, and early death. I guess those are “sexually transmitted adverse results.”

Some books that are not universally recognized as scripture seem silly when you read them, and it’s easy to dismiss them as bogus. For example, it’s hard to take the story of Bel and the Dragon seriously. The style doesn’t match the book of Daniel, and the story is a little cartoonish. But so far, the book of Jasher seems convincing.

I better go put my shoes on.

More

A book called Tree of Souls says the name mentioned in the story of the “images” was the name of a foul spirit, not God. In another place it says “spirits,” plural, and that incantations were also written on the object put in the head’s mouth.

6 Responses to “What to do When You Run Out of Bible”

  1. Elisson Says:

    “Venereal” is the adjectival form of “Venus,” the Roman goddess of love. The term “VD” – venereal disease – is more poetic, perhaps, but it’s less clear than “STD” – sexually transmitted disease. In fact, VD is an old euphemism, “venery” being a euphemism for sexual activity.

    STD doesn’t sound clean. It’s pretty neutral and matter-of-fact. It tells you exactly how one goes about getting the disease.

    It is a boring term, though – I’ll give you that. Maybe we ought to start calling these conditions “whoremongeroses.” Or “Dick-Stick Sick.”

  2. Aaron's cc: Says:

    A marriage is so sanctified that God allows His name to be erased to preserve the union of husband and wife. The punishment only occurs if the husband is also blameless. The accused adulteress isn’t merely accused. It is a woman who was explicitly warned by her husband not to go into seclusion with another specific man. It is an innocent woman who would demand the procedure to prove her blamelessness.

    More details about the procedure (from Numbers 5) on the Orthodox Union website: http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5764/naso64.htm

    One of the most unusual passages in the Torah (Bamidbar 5:11-31) concerns the Sotah (wayward wife):

    And Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying, “Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them: Any man whose wife strays, and commits a trespass against him”.

    If a woman has been behaving indecently, her husband warns her, in the presence of two witnesses, against any secret meetings with a particular man. Disregarding this, she was observed entering a place with a man where adultery could have occurred. However, there were no witnesses, she was not raped, and she maintains her innocence.

    If both she and her husband consent, she is tested with the “bitter waters”. The local court listens to the accusations, and sends two judges as chaperones to accompany her to the Sanhedrin. Throughout, the wife is told that if she will admit her sin, she will be divorced rather than endure the test. In the Sanhedrin she is publicly cautioned, worn down and shamed, so she might recant.

    At the eastern gate to the Azara, facing the Holy of Holies, the Kohen administers an oath and curse: Hashem will make your thigh to fall away and your belly to swell (verse 21), to which she responds, “Amen, amen.”

    The whole passage, including Hashem”s Name, is written on parchment. Sanctified water is drawn from the kiyor into an earthenware vessel. Some dirt from the floor of the Sanctuary is strewn on the surface of the water. (In the Temple a marble floor-tile at the northern corner of the altar would be raised to remove the dust.) The passage is dissolved into the water. The Kohen tears the woman”s clothing and loosens her hair. She holds the grain offering in her hands. Then she is made to drink the mixture. The offering is waved, and a portion of it is brought on the altar.

    If she is guilty, “her face turns green, her eyes protrude and her veins swell” (Talmud, tractate Sotah 20a). She dies immediately, unless she has merits that delay her death. Her paramour meets a similar death.

    But if the woman was not defiled, and she is pure, then she will be unaffected, and she will conceive (verse 28).

    The “bitter waters” are effective only if her husband is free of iniquity. Therefore, when adultery became commonplace, R. Yochanan ben-Zakkai discontinued the Sotah ordeal (Sotah 47a-b). Divorce became the only solution.

    Although this procedure is unique among the mitzvot — as Ramban says, no other mitzvah depends on a miracle — in a sense, it has precedents. After the sin of the Golden Calf, Moshe took the calf which they had made and burned it in fire and ground it until it was fine powder. And he scattered it on the surface of the water and made the Children of Israel drink (Shemot 32:20). He treated them like the Sotah, because idolatry is comparable to adultery: a woman beloved by a paramour, and an adulteress, like the love of Hashem for the Children of Israel, though they turn toward other gods (Hoshea 3:1). “for with their idols they have committed adultery (Yechezkel [Ezekiel] 23:37).” Ibn Ezra says the water revealed who had worshipped the calf. But Rashi (quoting Avoda Zara 44a and Yoma 66b) says the waters actually punished the guilty: “Three forms of death were administered there: If there were witnesses and warning, by the sword, as is the judgment of the wayward city (Devarim 13:13-18), which were many. If there were witnesses without warning, by plague, as it says, “and Hashem struck the people” (Shemot [Exodus] 32:35). If no witnesses or warning, with dropsy, for the water tested them and their bellies swelled” (Shemot 32:20).

    But the origins of the Sotah ordeal go back even earlier. During his plea for Hashem”s justice before destroying Sedom and Amorah, Avraham spoke up and said, “Behold now I have undertaken to speak to my Lord, but I am dust and ashes” (Bereishit 18:27). As reward for this expression of humility, Avraham”s descendants merited two mitzvot: the ashes of the [red] heifer and the dust of the Sotah (Sotah 17a; Chullin 88b; Yalkut Shimoni Vayeira; Bereishit Rabba 49:23).

    Maharsha (R. Shmuel Eliezer ben Judah HaLevi Edels, 1555-1631) clarifies that, regardless, the Divine Will would have provided the means for ending impurity caused by contact with death and for determining the suspected wife”s guilt or innocence. However, the processes would have been more difficult. Instead, these transformations can be effected using easily obtainable items — dust and ashes.

    The Sotah ordeal is a boon in a sense. As Rashi explains, it establishes justice and prevents mamzerim. If it confirms the wife”s innocence, she will be blessed with conception, malicious talk about her children will cease and family stability (shalom bayit) will be restored.

    Etz Yosef (R. Chanoch Zundel ben Yosef, d. 1867) notes further that without the Sotah procedure there might be no alternative but divorce, as is the situation nowadays. As reward for Avraham”s self-abnegation, Sotah holds out the hope for another chance.

    Bet Halevi (R. Yosef Dovber ben Yitzchak Zeev Halevi Soloveitchik, 1820-1892) and Maharal (R. Yehudah Loew ben Betzalel, c. 1525-1609) see in Avraham”s “dust and ashes” symbols of the future and the past. Bet Halevi writes: “Dust never had a significant form, but it can receive a significant form because people can plant in it and grow all flora, or make a useful utensil from it. Ashes had form before, but now one cannot make anything from it, because it was not combinable, nor can it produce vegetation. This is what Avraham said of himself, that he was never important, nor is anything important about to come from him. ” The ashes of the [red] heifer purify the defiled one from now into the future, while the dust of the Sotah makes clear that all along she was undefiled. Both of them are measure for measure.”

    There is another story about how, after the Sotah ritual was no longer used, rabbis continued to learn from it:

    Bamidbar Rabba Parshat Naso

    R. Zechariah, the son-in-law of R. Levi, related the following incident: R. Meir used to hold regular classes in the Synagogue every Sabbath eve. A certain woman was present who regularly came to listen to him.

    On one occasion he went later than expected. When she arrived home she found the lights out. Her husband asked her: “Where have you been?” She told him: “I have been listening to a class.” He replied: “You may not enter this house until you go and spit in the face of the teacher.”

    Through the Holy Spirit Rabb Meir witnessed this. He then pretended to be suffering from pain in the eyes, and announced: “If there is any woman skilled in whispering charms for the eyes, let her come and whisper.” Her neighbors related this to her and said: “This is a chance for you to return home. Pretend you are a charmer and spit into his eyes [which was part of the charm].” When she came to him he said to her: “Are you skilled in whispering charms for the eyes?”

    Daunted by his presence she answered in the negative. He said to her: “Nevermind, spit into this one seven times and it will get better.” After she had spat he said to her: “Go and tell your husband: ‘You bade me do it only once; see, I have spat seven times!’”

    His disciples said to him: “Master! are the words of the Torah to be treated with such contempt as this? Had you told us, would we not have sent and fetched the man and given him a flogging on the bench and forced him to become reconciled with his wife?”

    Said he to them: “The dignity of Meir ought not to be greater than that of his Divine Master.” If in the case of [the Sotah ritual where] the Holy Name which is so sacred, the Torah orders that it is to be blotted out in water, in order to bring about peace between a man and his wife, what does the dignity of Meir matter?

    A use of “the name” was by the mixed multitudes when Aaron was delaying the

  3. km Says:

    The several books of teh Apocypha aren’t bad (if you are of a denomination that doesn’t recognize them as canon).

    As we sink into depravity, the idols thing figures to become more prominent.

  4. Aaron's cc: Says:

    I need to figure out your css so that your comment paragraphs are 1.5x spaced.

  5. Sparrow Says:

    I thought an STD was something you added to your gasoline.

  6. greg zywicki Says:

    “Venery” and “Venereal” also relate to hunting; “Venereal Disease” is a prettied-up double entendre.